Supreme Court Did Not Intervene in the Likud Court's Decision

What Sparked the Dispute

The Likud Convention narrowly approved a provision allowing incumbent MKs, ministers, and deputy ministers to participate in the primaries not only on the national list but also by running for district and representative slots. Following the vote, several activists and candidates filed petitions with the party court, also pointing to procedural irregularities.

What the Party Court Ruled

The Likud Supreme Court struck down the approved provision on the grounds that it conflicted with the party constitution and that the proceedings were flawed. According to its decision, an incumbent MK may not run for a slot reserved for a representative unless the MK resigns from the Knesset and waives state funding for the primaries. Accordingly, the separation between national slots and district slots was preserved.

Why the Supreme Court Did Not Intervene

The case was heard by Supreme Court Justices Daphne Barak-Erez, Ofer Grosskopf, and Alex Stein. They noted that the District Court had previously found no grounds to overturn the party court's decision, as the party court had considered the dispute within its authority, detailed its reasoning, and identified irregularities. Although the District Court did not accept one of the three parts of the reasoning, the remaining grounds for the decision stood, and judicial intervention required special grounds.

How the Proceedings Ended

Following the panel's comments, Afif Amin Abed decided to withdraw the petition because the justices made clear that they intended to reject it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not reconsider the Likud's internal decision, and the rules separating national slots from district slots remained in effect.

Latest legal news

• Court allows parents of late Maj. Ofek Bachar to use his sperm
• High Court issues order nisi over regional radio reform
• Supreme Court decision in BSA 8455/17 addresses appeal classification